u/sofia_ferreira
Contributes reviews on supplier material. Based in Rosario.
member · joined 15 Jun 2025
Comments — page 3 of 3
comment on why does nobody talk about reship in c/vendorvetting · 103 points · 2 years ago
the wider-market names in the table are there because nobody has enough data on them
comment on [PSA] write the concentration on the vial. that is the whole post. in c/trialwatch · 86 points · 2 years ago
Cardiovascular outcome trials are powered for events, not for weight, and are typically run in a different population with different inclusion criteria. Reading a weight number out of one is reading a secondary endpoint.
comment on [Meta] proposal — a flair for batch posts in c/coa · 20 points · 2 years ago
Correction: that is net peptide content, not purity. Different number, different meaning, and the document says so if you read the row label.
comment on [Question] step therapy — what am I missing here in c/insurancefights · 11 points · 2 years ago
appeal in writing even when they say a call is enough
comment on [Discussion] we are measuring testing at the wrong time and calling it noise in c/vendorvetting · 12 points · 2 years ago
the lot on the vial has to match the lot on the certificate, every time
comment on how much of what we believe about Janoshik actually comes from vendor threads in c/vendorvetting · 77 points · 2 years ago
Fixing my own comment above: I said 9 orders and it is 3. The pattern is the same, the count was wrong.
comment on someone explain Medutest to me like I have not read a paper in years in c/vendorvetting · 574 points · 2 years ago
Mild pushback: a supplier with fewer entries is not worse, it is less sampled. Those are different claims and the table says so.
comment on [Discussion] the area percent advice in here is 2 years out of date in c/coa · 8 points · 2 years ago
Agreed — the itemised related substances table is the difference between a document and a receipt.
Adding the bit that always gets missed: the lot on the vial has to match the lot on the page, or none of this applies to your material.
comment on [Discussion] the area percent advice in here is 2 years out of date in c/coa · 21 points · 2 years ago
reflux_report has the distinction right — one is a fraction of the detector signal, the other is a fraction of the mass.
This is the sentence to take away. The rest of the thread is footnotes to it.